On Thursday, in article
     <41419d52.3003414@supernews.seanet.com> fairwater@gmail.com
     "Derek Lyons" wrote:

raj@rijhwani.org (Raj Rijhwani) wrote:

On Wednesday, in article
    <10jven6o5bbmbe5@corp.supernews.com> dlb613@charter.net
    "David or Eunice Boucher" wrote:

climatepredicition workunits, which can take up to a year to process,

If that's true, someone made a serious error of judgement in designing 
the work units.  How many computers are going to work reliably and remain 
installed, or be properly backed up and restored, sufficiently well for a 
work allocation to ever be completed?

One suspects you need to visit climateprediction.net where you can see
exactly how many computers have done just that.

Maybe there are significant absolute numbers, BUT there's bound to also be 
a significant drop-out/restart rate over a year, and for each one that's a 
LOT of wasted resource which would not have gone to waste with a smaller 
work unit.  If nothing else it's a very wasteful design decision.
-- 
Raj Rijhwani                    |  This is the voice of the Mysterons...
raj@rijhwani.org                |  ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/    |  "Lieutenant Green:  Launch all Angels!"